Hocker v. Stricker

by Supreme Court of the United States

HOCKER verʃus STRICKER, Under Sheriff.

I

T was ruled in this cafe, that before the goods are removed, the Sheriff ought to allow a reafonable time, for the Defendant in Replevin to find fecurity on a claim of property ; which, in the practice of Pennʃylvania, fupplies the place of a writ de proprietate probanda: And SHIPPEN, Preʃident, fiad, that if the Jury were of opinion that a reafonable time had been refufed, the Defendant, Stricker, could not, in an action of trefpafs, juftify under the writ of Replevin."^[‖]